Sincerely investigate any of these three short quotes as new concepts and you've taken your first step into a larger world:

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness..." - Max Planck. "Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real" - Neils Bohr. "What we call physical things and events do not exist independently of subjective experience..." - Deepak Chopra.

Each of these three rabbit holes go deep, ending up in the same place.

People need the part of their brain that allows them to consider conflicting evidence so that they can consider both sides and make a decision. Sometimes they will make the wrong choice, but taking away that choice would be like giving them a lobotomy so they won't be as much trouble anymore. It's wrong, unethical, and a very dangerous experiment. I could imagine in the future everyone having to have a procedure done at birth that deactivates this part of the brain, turning us all into a bunch of retards who are more controllable and won't cause trouble!

If there is anything or anyone outside the box, they best not open it, no telling what they will let loose into their world. The idea makes me think of a woman named Pandora.

Alan

Well, no, the opposite...the experiment suppresses the part that WON'T let them consider both sides of an argument, IF one side feels threatening.

It ONLY ALLOWS them to consider ideas or information which USED TO BE TOO THREATENING to allow consideration of, due to cognitive dissonance, etc.

SO:

1) Before suppression (Their normal state), they might only consider information that supports their worldview/what they were raised to believe, that black people are inferior/white people are superior.

If they experienced or were exposed to smart, funny, kind and understanding black people, but, had to assume that those people were not "true blacks", or otherwise reject the evidence, because it felt threatening due to the reaction in that part of the brain (Parts, in the case of most prejudice).

If they had analogous evidence, say, they saw a black guy forget his car keys or whatever, they would accept that evidence, as it was not threatening. (Hah ha, dumb black guy forgot his keys, blacks are dumb...)

2) After suppression (temporary), they are suddenly ABLE TO COMPARE CONFLICTING INFORMATION, as the previously threatening information doesn't trigger the rejection response.

They can, for the first time, COMPARE information that both supports, and refutes, their deeply held core belief that black people are inferior.

The conflicting information is now NOT THREATENING, and they CAN allow it to be considered as potentially valid information.

So, one, the "treatment" is a temporary suppression of the person's rejection of threatening ideas, so that they CAN consider all evidence, and NOT JUST EVIDENCE SUPPORTING WHAT THEY ARE AFRAID TO NOT BELIEVE.

THAT is NOT "Taking Away their Choice", that is ADDING CHOICES that they PREVIOUSLY WERE UNABLE TO CONSIDER.

So, no, I would NOT want permanent treatments given to make people able to think more clearly, or run faster, or be stronger, or really really like to open hangar doors when they see a helicopter, etc...natural genetic evolution would then be short circuited, and we as a species would be more vulnerable to future changes.

THAT type of permanent treatment WOULD BE unethical I think.

The purpose of the EXPERIMENTS such as this one, was NOT to CHANGE the people.

It was to help UNDERSTAND HOW THE BRAIN WORKS.

It DOESN'T make them automatically ACCEPT a threatening idea, it ONLY stops the rejection of it based upon FEAR.

ALL ideas are then CONSIDERED, and, some will decide they still hate black people, and some will decide that they might not be as bad as they previously thought.

Suppression of the fear based rejection doesn't make you then also not THINK....just ALLOWS thought about things that were previously blocked by the degree of threat.

AS for it making people "More Controllable", well, again, it's the opposite.

Control is easiest when you tell people what to believe....especially if you make that belief system require adherence to rules.

If "The Party Line" is what people believe, as they tend to in Red China for example, or that part of Korea with young leaders with bad haircuts, etc...the children's thoughts and beliefs are molded quite carefully.

A child will turn in his own parent for example for a rule infraction. Their deeply held core belief is that it is moral to do so, because that's what they were taught by those in power who wanted them to turn in infractors.

If the children were ALLOWED to make rational decisions, without the system's rules implanted in them from an early age...they might choose to not betray their parents, or, they might choose TO betray their parents.

They could WEIGH the pros/cons and harm to society that might occur either way, and make up their own mind based upon their comparison.

Of course, a certain percentage of humans have more or less active brain regions that suppress conflicting information.

Some will reject conflicting information like a brick wall, NOTHING gets through, and some will scan ideas for the DEGREE of threat, and only reject ideas that are below a certain, personal, threshold of threat.

ALL humans do this rejection process, it's only a matter of DEGREE as to how strongly they do it.

The ones who do it the strongest are the most prejudiced typically for example.

Everyone does it though. A guy who is convinced of global climate change will look initially at evidence against it with the assumption that the evidence must be wrong.

A guy who is convinced that there is no global climate change will look initially at evidence FOR IT with the assumption that the evidence must be wrong.

The DIFFERENCE is the DEGREE of rejection.

The people with very active suppression of opposing ideas may not even read past a headline to decide to reject the evidence...its opposing, so, it's rejected.

Those with less active suppression by that part of the brain might read the whole article, but reading it with only the objective of finding anything that allows them to justify rejection. That would mean a misspelling, it's too long, too short, formatted wrong, contains any item that they "know" to be false, and so forth.

Those with the LEAST suppression by the involved brain parts might read the article, weigh the merits and deficiencies, and decide that only PARTS of the article are valid, but that the conclusion is incorrect because of ABC, or, correct because of XYZ, etc.

Even they, typically, will need more evidence to change their mind than they do to preserve their existing belief...it's just how we're hard wired.

We evolved to have these tendencies, as they allow for faster decisions.

We see a bear, and, don't wonder about THIS bear, and whether THIS bear looks dangerous or not.

We ARE prejudiced about bears, we assume they eat people, and act accordingly.

Those who take the time to try to get to know the bear are simply more likely to get eaten, and, NOT pass on their genes.

Those who see the bear and run for daylight, without considering that THAT bear might not eat people...had a higher chance of passing on genes.

As time passed, and most of our life choices were more complicated/not immediate as far as consequences....the need for this fear-based shortcut was muted.

The ones who's ancestors made slower decisions, but which turned out to be correct, DID pass on their genes, and had pet bears, etc.

So, there's a spectrum of activity in those parts of the brain across humanity.

We do NOT want to mess with that. Anything that reduces our species genetic diversity is a bad idea.

We DO want to know what parts of the brain do what though, as that helps us care for wounded warriors, those in car accidents, etc. THAT is the purpose of studies like this...NOT to "change people", but, to see how they WORK.

As for that darn box....

Again...is anyone able to describe a box so large that there is no space outside of it?

Its a thought experiment...and, if its not too threatening, someone should be able to either imagine that box and what it would be like, or, to imagine it and decide that it could not exist, and why.

In case it frees up the thought process, the bible doesn't mention whether space is finite or infinite.

It only discusses earth and the stars as fixed in place/held up on pillars, etc...and nowhere does it say how far away anything is.

It also doesn't discuss how you must approach thought experiments about boxes.

This means you should be able to do a thought experiment about the box, w/o threatening core beliefs.

Alan - Pandora had the bad things IN her box (It was a jar, but, close enough), not outside it.

So, if you believe in greek mythology, which says all of the evil was INSIDE, and released to the OUTSIDE...and WE are what's IN the box, we might be better off outside?

Unless WE ARE the evil in the box, and, it's those outside that the box protects?

Do you feel your box protects you from what's outside? Or, that it protects what's outside, from US?

What actually would BE outside? (Logically, not as a "There be dragons beyond..." sort of fear)

Well, I'm not even sure if we have anyone left in the forum who thinks the earth is only~ 6k years old, let alone flat.

I think the few who DID say it was young, are gone...and/or keeping quiet about it, but no one said it was flat, seriously, that I can recall.

The young earthers were so ill informed that they could not even argue/understand HOW to argue a point..they would just insist that that's what the bible said...but, it doesn't say, humans did math, and THEY said it....so they just felt picked on and wandered off it seemed.

I would be shocked if anyone on this forum actually thought the earth was flat though, even the Greeks knew it was round...but, I have been shocked before, so, if so, bring it.

On an unrelated albeit still potentially religious note....I had a thought.

In the bible (Old), in Genesis, one of the first things is "Let there be light".

Now that science has shown that light (Photons at least) ARE one of the first things to pop up all by themselves from "empty space", along with some other matter/anti-matter, so, it would seem that the "beginning" in the bible, has a parallel in the beginning of "stuff".

So, imagine you had to tell beings who are so primitive, some still live in caves, pray to cattle, etc..about how the universe started.

Well, first, some photons and anti-matter/matter popped into existence because of them being a property of the fabric of space-time...

There's pretty much no vocabulary for that type of information.

The word for arm, and the word for hand were the same for example back then...a hand wound was a wound to the end of your arm essentially.

On an unrelated albeit still potentially religious note....I had a thought.

In the bible (Old), in Genesis, one of the first things is "Let there be light".

Now that science has shown that light (Photons at least) ARE one of the first things to pop up all by themselves from "empty space", along with some other matter/anti-matter, so, it would seem that the "beginning" in the bible, has a parallel in the beginning of "stuff".

So, imagine you had to tell beings who are so primitive, some still live in caves, pray to cattle, etc..about how the universe started.

Well, first, some photons and anti-matter/matter popped into existence because of them being a property of the fabric of space-time...

There's pretty much no vocabulary for that type of information.

The word for arm, and the word for hand were the same for example back then...a hand wound was a wound to the end of your arm essentially.

Things HAD to be in story form, able to be verbally transmitted to very very simple folk.

Let There Be Light. Pretty straight forward. Gets the point across, no?

So, I could see going that route in that context.

Anyone else see that as a potential connection? (Excluding other associated information, and only considering the light)

Well miracles never cease to happen! I am amazed you are able to think like that. I have said before and I will say again, there are things in the bible that couldn't be described literally because no one could understand it. In order for people to understand what you are telling them about, they have to know of something similar to compare it to, it becomes much more difficult if the person has no understanding of science and technology, or has never seen or heard of something similar.

There is hope for you yet! You even admitted in the other thread that aliens may exist!

Are you feeling ok? My mother started acting really strange when she had her stroke.

Well miracles never cease to happen! I am amazed you are able to think like that. I have said before and I will say again, there are things in the bible that couldn't be described literally because no one could understand it. In order for people to understand what you are telling them about, they have to know of something similar to compare it to, it becomes much more difficult if the person has no understanding of science and technology, or has never seen or heard of something similar.

There is hope for you yet! You even admitted in the other thread that aliens may exist!

Are you feeling ok? My mother started acting really strange when she had her stroke.

Alan

LOL

My wife had a series of strokes if that helps?

There's at least a theoretical possibility that aliens exist...all it requires is for another planet to do what happened here.

We KNOW that that CAN happen at least.

After that, it's just a question of IF that process leads to critters able to develop to the point where they are what we would consider sentient enough to look far enough into space and find us, etc.

We just BARELY reached that point ourselves, in the past few years....a infinitesimal pin point in the overall time scales involved.

The signals we might send out for example, would take 1,500 YEARS to reach that potential sister planet discussed before.

So, WE signal THEM in 2015, and, in the year 3515, THEY RECEIVE IT.

IF they receive it in 3515, and send an answer, we won't GET IT until ~ 5015, about three thousand years from now.

A LOT can happen in 3,000 years.

On earth for example, we went from essentially bronze age technology, like spears, to catapults, to gunpowder, to rockets, to sending a craft out past Pluto using an ion propulsion engine.

100 years ago, we were still mostly using horses for transportation.

So, given the rate at which science and technology have advanced even in the past 50 years alone....in THREE THOUSAND YEARS, holy crap, where will we be THEN?

Hmmm, it would take even longer, as the stuff far from us is accelerating away from us at a higher rate than the stuff closer to us, etc.

Anyway - The back and forth would be an enormous time scale relative to human life on earth so far.

A journey that at the speed of light would take over 1,500 YEARS, one way - is probably going to require either more than Obama Care, or suspended animation, etc....to make it. We are talking about generations of pioneers, more along the lines of our migrations out of Africa, and ending up in Kansas and Peking, etc.

So, first we made short trips out of Africa, to Egypt, etc...and then farther and farther up through Europe, Asia and eventually, the new world.

Our next diaspora would then be from our world, to the moon, and then to other planets in our solar system, such as Mars, and perhaps some of the other planet's moons that are more friendly, and, then, out into open space, outside of our solar system.

After that, we would spread to other solar systems, and, then other galaxies.

If the travellers are pioneers and explorers, and are not coming back to earth...they could then spread throughout the universe, a web of far flung colonies.

I think that's actually Virgin's business plan.

Anyway, one day, WE might be the aliens landing on some distant planet, and watch the inhabitants run screaming for shelter while trying to prevent us from abducting them and probing their butts, etc.

Of course, we COULD just screw around with them, tell them stuff like they're not allowed to masterbate anymore, you know, to see if they're advanced enough to know if we were just joshin' and all.

We'd tell them we'll come back, say, in a few thousand years.

If they still are taking it seriously, I suppose we'd have to let the cat out of the bag at that point....and hope they forgive us.

Your god is all-powerful and all-knowing. It wouldn't be a problem for him.

So which is it. He can't communicate effectively, or he won't communicate effectively?

That might be a false dichotomy.

There are other options to explain the poor communication.

Some OTHER random examples of options:

1) He never existed.

2) He existed, but chose some bronze age jews, only spoke to them, and to no one else, ever again.

3) He existed, but was not able to do anything he wanted to, he had limits, such as defeating iron chariots was a bit over his limit, according to the bible.

He seemed to express the worldliness, worldview and wisdom of a bronze age jew, including a knowledge of earlier Sumerian and other older cultures legends and myths that a bronze age jew would have had access to, and, seemed to repeat these, all but verbatim.

That would indicate a bronze age basis, and no ability towards relevance in the future except by coincidence.

All laws, advice, guidance, had already been promulgated, by Hammurabi, etc. Nothing new was added.

He described himself as a "Jealous God". He was also devoid of originality.

The gods of greek and roman times also were not perfect, either.

There is a long and noble tradition of flawed gods...with strengths and weaknesses, just like people, even like bronze age jews.

In the old testament, he said no gods BEFORE him, not that he was the only one.

Maybe he was trying to communicate that he wanted you all to clap really hard, forever, so he would not stop existing?

So that's 3 off the top of my head at least.

And, I still like that photons and matter/antimatter (positrons/electrons) pop up all by themselves as a function of spacetime....and the juxtaposition of that, and "Let there be light".

Its poetic.

Creation is not something someone has to DO. It is a function of spacetime.

Spacetime probably never whispered into a scribe's ear.

THAT would just be creepy.

It DID whisper into a radio telescope in NJ and get two guys a nobel prize though.

Things have gotten so bad in this world that the only solution is "the end". According to the bible the only thing that should be done is to spread the truth to as many as possible. There's soon to be a time when the governments will annihilate religion altogether (you can see it happening already and how people are frowning at the multitudes of these religious groups causing wars) and announce "peace and security". After that happens it says that instant destruction will fall upon them.

Edit- contact with him isn't completely severed though. We have prayer. He will help those practicing their faith and to those uneducated who are seeking his will.

Your god is all-powerful and all-knowing. It wouldn't be a problem for him.

So which is it. He can't communicate effectively, or he won't communicate effectively?

I disagree that it has to be one or the other. The message whatever it may be is usually delivered to one person who is then responsible for telling everyone else. It has to be understood by the people of that time. There are also things that are someone trying to describe what they saw with the limited knowledge they had at the time. What about those things the prophet Ezekiel describes, if you examin the text carefully it seems to be round and have landing gear and maybe had windows and some type of aircraft also flew around the area. Whatever he was seeing was metallic and had bright lights so he was struggling to find the right words. Should he have said it was a starship came to earth and hovered above me and it had some fighters to patrol the area? The language didn't exist at the time so he couldn't say it that way. What about the prophet Elijah who was taken away in a chariot of fire, he was taken up by a whirlwind into this thing that flew away, they sent out teams to look for him for three days and decided they probably won't see him again and gave up looking. Should it say that a UFO or a flying saucer abducted him and they never saw him again? Again this didn't exist in the language of the time. I think also when John was writing revelation he was struggling to find the correct words for some of what he had seen.

I am not saying that it wasn't God that talked to Ezekiel, or that God didn't take Elijah from the earth, but I am saying that those events couldn't have been described well in the language of the time.